We have just landed George Hill in a trade, yeah. But, Bird said that he wants to have the best bench in the league. What if that means he wants Paul George to slide to the bench to make a Lance/Hill/George trio off the bench? Do any of you guys think that is a possibility, or do you think we are set there? If not, who do you think we'll go after?

The reason I am asking this is because of Bird's comment about him wanting the Pacers to have the best bench in the league. I don't think we can sign a backup three without breaking the bank (Signing a guy like Tayshaun or Battier to expensive contracts), so I am wondering if anyone else shares the idea that Bird wants to go Starting SG/Hill and Granger/George? Obviously George or Hill would be losing some minutes along the way, but as long as we have the best depth in the league, isn't that a very good thing?

Say that we get a shooting guard such as Crawford, Mayo, etc.. Who's main objection is to get the ball in the basket. He plays around 28-30 minutes, Hill gets 10-15 minutes behind him, and he gets 10-15 minutes at backup point. Granger gets 35 minutes, and George gets 13 minutes behind him, and the scrap minutes as the two so that he gets more than plenty of time to develop (I am one of George's biggest fans so I'm not throwing him under the bus). Wouldn't that be a great thing?

Just wondering and trying to circulate some discussion. Who would we go after? A young guy like OJ Mayo or Marcus Thornton, or a vet like Jamal Crawford, Jason Richardson, Ray Allen in a trade if BOS were to blow it up, or even Vince Carter?

Or are we set?

I think that an offseason in which we acquire Hill, a starting two who can fill it up big time for us, get Lance straightened out, and sign either David West or Carl Landry, meanwhile having enough money to potentially go after a big time free agent next summer, is a home run off-season.

CableKC

07-30-2011, 06:33 AM

I know that many's opinion will differ from mine....but I think that we should go after a solid Starting SG that can be a very reliable and consistent Scorer and push PG and GH to the 2nd unit.

Although some may prefer JCraw...IMHO....he's to streaky and not the prototypical SG that I'd prefer to have on the roster.

My 1st choice would be JRich and then ( my dark horse 2nd choice ) Reggie Williams. I know that some think that PG or even GH should be that Starting SG....but Bird said that he wanted one of the deepest and strongest Bench in the league. IMHO...pushing PG and GH to the 2nd unit would do that.

I believe Bird would add a tall wing. It may be Dunleavy or (if a better opportunity presents itself) someone else. Iguodala would be the obvious target with 3 years left.

O'Braindead

07-30-2011, 06:40 AM

I have no problem if Bird goes after yet another wing, the only thing I ask for is that he is a two-way player. A player that plays both offense and defense. Paul George and George Hill are exceptional when it comes to this, and Roy and Danny are getting there. If we can get another two way player who can score a little bit better, like Jason Richardson, we would be set to have a very exciting season ahead of us (But we still have to add a starting four)... of course, whenever that next season is.

xIndyFan

07-30-2011, 07:27 AM

at this point, i think bird is looking for bigs. unless a starter quality wing offered to work for the vet's min, there is little chance the pacer FO would be interested. george hill is going to be the starter at the 2 and given a chance to show he is the pacer's best player. lance will be the backup PG with a good chance to be the starter by the end of next season. george hill will be the backup. danny is the 3. i just don't see any minutes available unless/until some of the other wings now on the roster are gone.

BlueNGold

07-30-2011, 07:51 AM

With Collison and Granger playing big minutes, our perimeter D is not that good. That became clear when the only thing that slowed down Derrick Rose was putting Paul George on him. I would be hesitant to add yet another average (at best)defensive player next to Tyler, Granger, Collison and Hibbert...each who are better offensively than defensively.

Also, I hope Paul is ready for the full time gig. He is likely to make the normal sophomore jump in productivity and, if so, he may be better than any other option we have available on the free agent market when you factor in his stellar D.

Finally, we will have a strong enough bench. The focus should be on putting the best team on the floor and best rotations. IOW, how do these players fit together? I think Paul fits very well in the starting unit because he complements them very well.

That will allow Lance and George Hill to play on the second unit. Lance will need a player like George to guard the other team's PG on the other end. George is more of a SG on offense and Lance is more of a PG. It could be an outstanding combination off the bench. JMHO.

Anthem

07-30-2011, 09:39 AM

I'm with you, BnG. Good read on the situation.

I wouldn't turn down a high-quality wing that doesn't cost us a core piece, but I'd be fine with starting Danny-Paul-Collison and bringing Inferno-Lance-Hill off the bench. Or maybe this is the year Brandon gets it together.

OakMoses

07-30-2011, 10:11 AM

It's a bit of a numbers game. Right now we have 11 players under contract, 9 of which play the 1, 2, or 3, unless you consider Posey a big (I consider him nothing.). We need at least 5 bigs, preferably 6. I think Bird would like to add a wing, but he needs to move Rush, Jones, Posey, or Price to do it.

Sent from my DROID2 using Tapatalk

Lance George

07-30-2011, 10:14 AM

A three winged Bird?

vnzla81

07-30-2011, 11:47 AM

I believe Bird would add a tall wing. It may be Dunleavy.

:puke:

CooperManning

07-30-2011, 12:19 PM

I'd be disappointed if we added another wing, I don't think it's necessary.

If there aren't any major injuries, there's hardly enough minutes to go around as it is. We're not the type of team that needs to add one more wing to put us in championship contention, so I don't see the point of adding one right now. Save the money, see what we have, and make additions next off-season if we need to.

If there was some killer FA that would be a perfect fit this year, I'd consider it, but I don't see it. I like J-Rich, but he's more or less in ring chase mode. If we were to overpay and get him, whose minutes take a hit? Because you pretty much have to play J-Rich 30 minutes at the 2 (played 34/g last year for Orlando). Assume Granger gets 36, so that leaves 30 wing minutes. Give 20 to PG and 10 to Hill I guess. It might work for a season, if DC is getting ~32 and Hill is getting the other 16 at the 1. That leaves no time for Lance, Rush, or Dahntay though. What happens after the first season when we want to play Paul George more than 20 minutes a game? Sit J-Rich and his sizable contract on the bench? I just think the money would be better spent at the 4/5. Adding J-Rich or a similar 2 makes us what, almost as good as the Hawks? A step up, no doubt, but ultimately I'd say a stunt to our growth.

jeffg-body

07-30-2011, 01:29 PM

I think it all depends if we trade one or multiple of our wings now for a quality big man.

pacer4ever

07-30-2011, 01:29 PM

Having the best bench in the NBA is useless if you dont have a great starting 5 that play great in your system and play together.

HeliumFear

07-30-2011, 01:30 PM

The wing rotation is good enough. The frontcourt isn't. The Bulls were a first seed with great defense,great rebounding,and mediocre offense. The Pacers were an 8th seed with mediocre all of the above. If we get a lead rebounder,this team does considerably better.

ballism

07-30-2011, 02:10 PM

Why does the discussion have to turn to power forwards everytime?
It's not an "either or" proposition. We are more than able to add a PF and still keep looking.

Tunnel vision is generally a bad thing in management.

HeliumFear

07-30-2011, 02:58 PM

I think it's more of a priority than finding a starting wing. We have starting quality wings.

adamscb

07-30-2011, 03:24 PM

Say that we get a shooting guard such as Crawford, Mayo, etc.. Who's main objection is to get the ball in the basket. He plays around 28-30 minutes, Hill gets 10-15 minutes behind him, and he gets 10-15 minutes at backup point. Granger gets 35 minutes, and George gets 13 minutes behind him, and the scrap minutes as the two so that he gets more than plenty of time to develop (I am one of George's biggest fans so I'm not throwing him under the bus). Wouldn't that be a great thing?

paul isn't going to develop the way we want with those minutes. he's the future of the franchise. if we get crawford or mayo, i think paul should start over either one. i really hope we dont resign dunleavy. he's a great guy, but doesnt fit into the future plans of this team. brandon rush is all but gone. that leaves us with d. jones, lance, PG, and geoge hill. i think we're set at the two spot. something i've been thinking about is the three spot. we have granger and PG, but with paul starting at the two, who else do we have to back up granger?

ksuttonjr76

07-30-2011, 05:18 PM

Why does the discussion have to turn to power forwards everytime?
It's not an "either or" proposition. We are more than able to add a PF and still keep looking.

Tunnel vision is generally a bad thing in management.

Probably because PF (and C for that matter) is our thinnest position right now. We only have Hibbert and Hansbrough under contract right now.

ballism

07-30-2011, 06:22 PM

Probably because PF (and C for that matter) is our thinnest position right now. We only have Hibbert and Hansbrough under contract right now.

Ohh really? :) I guess I just have this weird approach where I want to look at quality, not only number of bodies.

We don't have an above average starter other than Danny.
Moreover, we have only 3 wings that deserve to get significant minutes on a deep playoff team, and one of them will play big minutes as a point guard. S
o while a starting 4 is a priority, I don't see why Bird should pass opportunities to upgrade wings.

Especially when we have a ton of cap to pursue several targets.

ksuttonjr76

07-30-2011, 11:15 PM

Ohh really? :) I guess I just have this weird approach where I want to look at quality, not only number of bodies.

We don't have an above average starter other than Danny.
Moreover, we have only 3 wings that deserve to get significant minutes on a deep playoff team, and one of them will play big minutes as a point guard. S
o while a starting 4 is a priority, I don't see why Bird should pass opportunities to upgrade wings.

Especially when we have a ton of cap to pursue several targets.

Probably because Hibbert and Hansbrough can't play 48 MPG. That's just my two cents.

ECKrueger

07-30-2011, 11:36 PM

I still like a

DC/Hill
PG/Hill
DG/PG

rotation for the 1-3. Throw in a little Lance, Rush, or DJ as needed and I think we are pretty solid. Like others said, 4 and 5 are what we need most.

ballism

07-31-2011, 06:28 AM

Probably because Hibbert and Hansbrough can't play 48 MPG. That's just my two cents.

I see you can't comprehend the "several targets" part. But I'm confused how you get stuck. So I guess I'll leave it at that and blame my ability to write. :)

ksuttonjr76

07-31-2011, 09:37 AM

I see you can't comprehend the "several targets" part. But I'm confused how you get stuck. So I guess I'll leave it at that and blame my ability to write. :)

No...I read it, but then I thought...upgrading or going after "serveral targets" at the wing spot would totally defeat the purpose of acquiring George Hill on draft night. With Paul George at the SG spot, what more do you want, or are you in that small camp that wants Paul George to come off the bench to "give us a spark"?

ballism

07-31-2011, 02:37 PM

would totally defeat the purpose of acquiring George Hill

So we aquired Hill to only play on the wing? Well, I disagree. I assume he'll do the same thing he did in San Antonio. He'll take a good share of minutes at 1 and 2.

With Paul George at the SG spot, what more do you want

What more could I want from a starting shooting guard?
Man... Unless George takes a huge leap forward, how about a lot more?
Aren't you overrating George's current game "a little bit"?
George is years away from his prime.
He was nowhere near an above average starter this season.
I'd be perfectly fine with a quality veteran wing who could start at 2 while George keeps developing.

And even if it's not a starter (a good wing would probably take moving Posey&co to make some room)...
Ideally, you want at least 3 quality wings in the rotation. With Hill playing the backup 1 a lot, we maybe have 2.5. That's assuming good consistent play from George.
After that, it's a poo-poo platter of Rushs and Dahntays who are bound to get good minutes right now.

I'd salute Bird if he attempts to clean the house and bring a quality veteran wing. Whether a starter or a good backup.

BlueNGold

07-31-2011, 03:56 PM

I don't think we have a need at SG. Yes, we can do better than Rush and Dunleavy on the free agent market. But I don't think we can really beat the George brothers.

George Hill is really a SG and if Lance plays much GH will play 90% of his minutes at SG. That will leave 25 or 30 minutes for the starter. Paul already showed...as a rookie...that he can guard the MVP of the league very well. Then you have to factor in that a second year player usually develops considerably in preparation for their second year. That happened with Granger and Hibbert, for example.

Then you look at the options. Who is really going to be available AND add much more? JRich, a 30 year old vet, has seen his numbers go downhill as he's bounced around the league the last 4 years. ...and his numbers are similar to a pretty inexperienced George Hill's on a per minute basis. You really have to question how much (if any) JRich would add to the Pacers next year in comparison to the George brothers.

Is it possible a free agent SG could help us? Sure. The question though is what is more likely? This might depend on where you think Paul George will be this winter. I think he was supremely confident as a rookie which is half the battle. He has every tool it takes to be a great player. It's time to step back and watch IMHO....

BlueNGold

07-31-2011, 04:04 PM

I still like a

DC/Hill
PG/Hill
DG/PG

rotation for the 1-3. Throw in a little Lance, Rush, or DJ as needed and I think we are pretty solid. Like others said, 4 and 5 are what we need most.

No question about it. DC, Hill and PG are all young improving players who were pretty good last year. Combine Lance into that equation, we should be solid at SG and PG. Far better than last year.

Think about it. We had AJ Price, Rush and Dunleavy playing in the playoffs. We will now have a more mature version of DC, George Hill and probably Lance. That sir, is a very clear talent upgrade.

ksuttonjr76

07-31-2011, 07:56 PM

So we aquired Hill to only play on the wing? Well, I disagree. I assume he'll do the same thing he did in San Antonio. He'll take a good share of minutes at 1 and 2.

What more could I want from a starting shooting guard?
Man... Unless George takes a huge leap forward, how about a lot more?
Aren't you overrating George's current game "a little bit"?
George is years away from his prime.
He was nowhere near an above average starter this season.
I'd be perfectly fine with a quality veteran wing who could start at 2 while George keeps developing.

And even if it's not a starter (a good wing would probably take moving Posey&co to make some room)...
Ideally, you want at least 3 quality wings in the rotation. With Hill playing the backup 1 a lot, we maybe have 2.5. That's assuming good consistent play from George.
After that, it's a poo-poo platter of Rushs and Dahntays who are bound to get good minutes right now.

I'd salute Bird if he attempts to clean the house and bring a quality veteran wing. Whether a starter or a good backup.

I'm not overrating him, but I'm NOT underrating him either. I'm tired of the "Let our young players develop from the bench" concept. I say throw him to the fire and let's see what we got in Paul George.

McKeyFan

07-31-2011, 09:17 PM

At first I thought the thread topic asked if Bird wants another "ring."

pizza guy

08-01-2011, 12:16 AM

Considering that we have only Hans and Hibbert up front, I think the PF and C positions are of greater need to fill out the roster. BUT, I think SG is where we need the biggest UPGRADE in overall talent.

I wouldn't mind having Hill be the backup at both guard positions and PG24 being the backup at SF then SG if we were able to get ourselves a higher quality SG. I'd be fine with losing Dahntay, Rush, Dun, Lance, and Posey and getting someone like JRich. He's probably my first choice for a free agent this season.

I think we could easily fill in the holes behind Hibbert and Hans (and yes, I believe Hans is the starter at PF for us) with a handful of guys this year and next on the free agent market. If you think we need a tough guy, sign a guy whose only strength is strength. If you think we need a rebounder, sign a rebounder. I think Hibbert and Hans will be starting together unless we somehow get DHoward or KLove, and then we can use our cap space to fill in with those mid-level, niche players for depth.

The reason I say that is two-fold. First, I have confidence in #55 and #50. Second, I believe the NBA is a game made for SGs and PGs, and it takes a superstar at one of those two positions to win a title. I like DC a lot, but he's not going to be our superstar. So, if we can land Eric Gordon next year, we're made. This year, I'd go after JRich, and probably see if we can still get Mayo. The second two may not be the Kobe-level we all dream of, but on our team, I think they would succeed and push us a little closer to where we want to be.

Paul George may develop into that guy, but he's not going to be there yet this year, so I would gladly add someone to the mix who's on that next level and just get rid of the mediocre guys we've got on the wing.

CableKC

08-01-2011, 02:59 AM

No question about it. DC, Hill and PG are all young improving players who were pretty good last year. Combine Lance into that equation, we should be solid at SG and PG. Far better than last year.
Adding GH into the equation ( or more specifically removing AJ from the equation and substituting GH into his spot on the rotation ) does mean an increase in talent at the Guard rotation....but Lance IMHO still is an "unknown variable" to me.

Think about it. We had AJ Price, Rush and Dunleavy playing in the playoffs. We will now have a more mature version of DC, George Hill and probably Lance. That sir, is a very clear talent upgrade.
Sorry, but I don't consider any of the above a "very clear" upgrade at all....despite getting some Playoff experience and another year underneath the belt, I don't think that AJ, BRush or Dunleavy are going to make that much of a difference that you think it will. At least for AJ, BRush and Dunleavy.....I've seen enough of them to know what they are capable of and that we have seen their "ceiling". A Playoff run isn't going to equate to a "very clear" upgrade in talent whenever the next season is going starts.

As for Lance; IMHO, despite all the uptalk that Brid has been heaving on him, I need to see him play more before I consider him a solid rotational Guard. I'm not going to annoint him anything until he gets consistent minutes.

McKeyFan

08-01-2011, 08:11 AM

If you told me today we were keeping AJ and cutting DC, it wouldn't bother me much.

We do need an upgrade at the one.

ksuttonjr76

08-01-2011, 09:30 AM

If you told me today we were keeping AJ and cutting DC, it wouldn't bother me much.

We do need an upgrade at the one.

:bs: unless you got the names switched around by mistake.

owl

08-01-2011, 10:17 AM

I am just hoping there is a season. With players signing in Europe I expect a long no-season. Sigghhhhh....

NapTonius Monk

08-01-2011, 10:48 AM

What about Jeff Green? He can play 3/4. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

CableKC

08-01-2011, 01:35 PM

What about Jeff Green? He can play 3/4. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
When I think of a "Wing Player", I think more of a Player that is more of a SG that can play some SF minutes or vice versa....a SF that can play some SG minutes. Jeff Green doesn't fit that bill if you ask me....I agree that he's a Tweener Forward ( IMHO, more of a SF then a PF ), but he doesn't fit the mold of Player that I think that we are discussing in this thread.

McKeyFan

08-01-2011, 01:46 PM

:bs: unless you got the names switched around by mistake.
No, I got them right.

AJ sees the floor a little better and is more clutch down the stretch. And he doesn't ball gawk on defense.

DG is a given. PG has shown he's functional at least, last year, with tons of upside/room to improve. D Jones is solid and a proven rotation guy, imo. Same for Brandon. BRush isn't what I'd hoped at 13, but he is guy you can play and win with, imo. Lance is an unknown you can't count on. Hill is proven. You could argue you need a big 3, if Danny went down, but I don't think its worth worrying about with this group. I think PG, BRush, and D Jones can all give you mins at the 3.

So no, you need big men. You have Tyler and Roy under contract, that needs to be the focus, unless things are rearranged with a big trade.

Hicks

08-01-2011, 02:04 PM

No, I got them right.

AJ sees the floor a little better and is more clutch down the stretch. And he doesn't ball gawk on defense.

Collison is a decent 2 in a point guard's body.

So you would cut an above average shooting guard trapped in a point guard's body just so you could keep a below average point guard? And I actually like AJ and think he's capable of being better than he's shown already, but good lord.

Speed

08-01-2011, 02:16 PM

So you would cut an above average shooting guard trapped in a point guard's body just so you could keep a below average point guard? And I actually like AJ and think he's capable of being better than he's shown already, but good lord.

Rewatched game 4 and game 1 of Bulls series, plus thinking about the Bulls series. AJ was very solid, actually a difference maker, imo. Put him in a situation where he doesn't have to be the main offensive threat with the second team next year, I think his efficiency goes way up. Couple that with a fully healthy body, I think he projects an above average back up Point guard. His defense was better than DCs last year, even on 1.5 legs.

I really have no idea how they are going to do the minutes at this point tho. I think alot depends on how much Paul George has improved and how they are going to use Hill. Also, is Lance worthy of any minutes, who knows.

BringJackBack

08-01-2011, 02:36 PM

His problem wasn't that he can't play well. It's that he'll play relatively well one game, and then have a nightmare next three games, have two decent games, two bad, one good. He's wildly inconsistent.

Sookie

08-01-2011, 02:41 PM

So you would cut an above average shooting guard trapped in a point guard's body just so you could keep a below average point guard? And I actually like AJ and think he's capable of being better than he's shown already, but good lord.

I'm the biggest Price fan here, and I wouldn't cut DC in favor of AJ.

I think AJ's got a higher ceiling than most give him credit for. And in fact, if things work out for him, he could end up a better PG than DC. But forgetting everything else, AJ's averaging a traumatic injury every other year. Let's be careful.

You keep him, for this season at least, because he's cheap as dirt, and at the very least a very decent backup point guard. See if he becomes more consistently good, and go from there.

edit: The Bulls series. Price was very good. He had a god awful three minute stretch, and a hectic game 3. But that game two was really a major reason why I like the kid. He panicked..was awful..to end the half. Was still clearly shaken in the third. But the last five minutes of the game you could legitimately argue he was playing like the best Pacer on the floor. There wasn't a positive thing that happened for the Pacers, with the exception of a PG drive to the basket, that Price wasn't a part of. It takes a certain mental toughness to get yourself together, at crunch time, like Price did..in that situation. (After playing like a mess, suddenly having your role change and having ton of pressure, your first playoff series ect..)

And as for minutes. Have them battle it out in practice for minutes. Seriously..let them all earn it. I know that hasn't happened in the past couple of years, but that's really the way basketball teams should work. ;)

McKeyFan

08-01-2011, 02:51 PM

So you would cut an above average shooting guard trapped in a point guard's body just so you could keep a below average point guard? And I actually like AJ and think he's capable of being better than he's shown already, but good lord.
I didn't quite say that. Here's what I said:

If you told me today we were keeping AJ and cutting DC, it wouldn't bother me much.

We do need an upgrade at the one.
So, I wouldn't necessarily petition for it, but if it happened, it wouldn't upset me.

My larger point is that I don't think either are that good. If a superstar is a 10, Granger is an 8, then Price and DC are both 4's, imo.

We need an upgrade at the point.

vnzla81

08-01-2011, 03:52 PM

I didn't quite say that. Here's what I said:

So, I wouldn't necessarily petition for it, but if it happened, it wouldn't upset me.

My larger point is that I don't think either are that good. If a superstar is a 10, Granger is an 7, then Price and DC are both 4's, imo.

We need an upgrade at the point.

No doubt, we need a better PG as soon as possible.

90'sNBARocked

08-01-2011, 04:18 PM

I think its way too early to judge DC, if people feel after a season with a full training camp and same coach under his belt, that he is not progressing than maybe

I feel he needs at least one full season , under Vogel to judge fairly

Jrod Jones

08-01-2011, 04:19 PM

We should just let our guards/wings develop. No need to add a 9th guard/wing with DC, AJ, GHill, Lance and PG all expected to make positive strides this season. Let the young guys develop, let guys like Jones, Rush and DG do what they do and lets find some depth for the front court.

CableKC

08-01-2011, 06:14 PM

One thing that should be said that I'm not sure everyone understands in this thread....IF Bird thinks that there should be an upgrade to the Wing Spots....especially the Starting SG spot...by signing a FA Wing or trading for one....it does not mean that the FO won't look to upgrade the Frontcourt by signing a FA PF or adding an additional Backup Big Man like Foster.

We all know that the Frontcourt needs to be upgraded....but that doesn't mean that the SG spot can't be upgraded at the same time. We have the means and the resources to do so....the question more is whether Bird thinks we need to do that or not.

ksuttonjr76

08-01-2011, 06:30 PM

One thing that should be said that I'm not sure everyone understands in this thread....IF Bird thinks that there should be an upgrade to the Wing Spots....especially the Starting SG spot...by signing a FA Wing or trading for one....it does not mean that the FO won't look to upgrade the Frontcourt by signing a FA PF or adding an additional Backup Big Man like Foster.

We all know that the Frontcourt needs to be upgraded....but that doesn't mean that the SG spot can't be upgraded at the same time. We have the means and the resources to do so....the question more is whether Bird thinks we need to do that or not.

Not anymore now that he aquired Hill.

CableKC

08-01-2011, 07:22 PM

Not anymore now that he aquired Hill.
I know that it's a matter of opinion...but I don't think that GH was acquired to be our Starting SG but the type of Guard that can run the Point as a Backup to DC that can also provide some solid defense at the PG spot. To me, he's the type of Player that Bird is looking for when it comes to having a really "strong and deep" bench....especially when it comes to adding depth as a Backup PG while playing some Backup SG minutes.

Speed

08-02-2011, 07:50 AM

...IF Bird thinks that there should be an upgrade to the Wing Spots....especially the Starting SG spot...

Then my answer would be no Bird doesn't think so and I'd agree. I'd give the keys to Paul George and see where he goes as the starting 2 guard. To me, its time well invested.

I see Paul as the best perimeter defender, a very smart and intuitive defender at such a young age. I like his shot, just needs to extend range. I like his demeanor, not cocky, but very confident. I like his ability with the ball, just needs to tighten handles quite a bit. I like his willingness to pass and rebound and run the break. I like that he listens to coaches and players giving him advice. I like his athleticism, work ethic, persona in an interview....

I think you need to spoon feed Paul major minutes and responsibility and see what he can do, since his ceiling is high, imo. I guess if Jason Richardson wanted to come in and work for cheap you'd for take a talented player, but even in that scenario, I'd want PG to get 24 plus minutes a night.

ballism

08-02-2011, 09:58 AM

Then my answer would be no Bird doesn't think so

Noone here knows what Bird is thinking.
We can only wonder and speculate what he should think.

I guess if Jason Richardson wanted to come in and work for cheap you'd for take a talented player, but even in that scenario, I'd want PG to get 24 plus minutes a night.

The key is that it's completely realistic. Those are the minutes that Rush/Dahntay/Lance would get in current rotation at 2 and 3.

PS: I wouldn't think Bird would target J-Rich, but that's beside the point.

Speed

08-02-2011, 10:16 AM

Noone here knows what Bird is thinking.
We can only wonder and speculate what he should think.

The key is that it's completely realistic. Those are the minutes that Rush/Dahntay/Lance would get in current rotation at 2 and 3.

PS: I wouldn't think Bird would target J-Rich, but that's beside the point.

Absolutely, I was just speculating. I picked J Rich as an example since he's a free agent right now, but insert any vet starting caliber guy.

I guess to clarify, I'm okay to get a vet starter at 2 guard, I just don't think you need to. If you do, I wouldn't spend much and therefore probably another reason I'm good with investing in Paul George at that spot.

Its a fluid thing, though.

I felt like Paul made huge strides over the course of last season, maybe not statistically, but overall game play. I think he developed faster than any young Pacer I've seen in years. If we start to see that he's tapering off and you start to see a ceiling or things he's incapable of improving on, then I'd revisit a need for a starting 2 guard.

I'm pretty high on him defensively, I think he has size and quickness that really gives guys trouble. I think he merits start based on that alone, but thats not all he brings to the table. I'd almost bet money he comes back with a better 3 shot and shoots a significantly higher percentage. Its one of those things, for me, PG brings really good defense and doesn't take anything else off the table. Thats pretty good, especially for a team who needs two way players. I can see Paul being top 15 in steals as soon as next year, if he gets minutes and I don't even think that glam stat will even tell the whole story on what he brings defensively, imo. BTW, I am not just judging it on him guarding DRose in the playoffs. He did a nice job those last set of games, across the board, imo.

Right now, though, I'd play him and George Hill every 2 guard minute available and feel good about the position going into next year, big time.

Another thing, its not only a minute thing for me. I want him to have responsibility to maximize his development. If you bring in a vet starter, I think it might get in the way of that.

Honestly, I'd look at Point Guard, Power Forward, and maybe even Center starter upgrades before I'd look at starting Shooting Guard going into year two of Paul George. Thats just my opinion, though.

ballism

08-02-2011, 11:10 AM

I agree with that general thinking. And I view George pretty much the same way.

But I just view Rush and Dahntay as pretty bad players (for a playoff team). And I wouldn't mind us to bench or trade them. Right now they are bound for big minutes.
To me, this isn't about George at all. George gets big minutes either way.

I wouldn't spend much and therefore probably another reason I'm good with investing in Paul George at that spot.

I don't care about price as much as contract length and remaining cap.
Just for example. Lets say we get Iguodala's 3 year deal at high salary but we manage to include Posey in the deal. That would be perfect in my book.

Dahntay&Rush are basically out of rotation. We have one of the best wing rotations in the league. We can be patient with George for 3 years, yet he still gets huge minutes every night. AND we have a ton of cap space to make a run at any FA power forward and fill out the rotation.

What's not to like.

Right now, though, I'd play him and George Hill every 2 guard minute available.

That won't happen though.
Hill will play a ton at 1 and George will play a ton at 3. Right now PG seems to be by far our best backup for Danny. And there may even be some 4 guard units with George at 3 and Danny at 4.

In other words, there's no way PG and Hill split all 2 guard minutes. There's realistically some 25 SG minutes left for Dahntay, Rush and Lance right now.

Brad8888

08-02-2011, 12:08 PM

With Granger, Paul George, George Hill, Brandon Rush (no, I don't think he will get traded at this point due to the focus being defense and shooting on the wings coupled with his now being a known player with a history of positive drug tests that has shown the effects of it in his play), and the "best player" Lance (a relatively small wing who can throw flashy passes), with Dahntay Jones (no, I don't think he will be traded either unless he is a throw-in on a deal for a PF), and a likely mid level exception (or whatever comes about as a result of the new CBA) type signing of Dunleavy as a second unit passer (somebody has to pass the ball to allow offensive flow, and Dunleavy is the best we have had at that, with McRoberts second), I can't imagine signing another wing unless one of our better wings is traded.

So, if he does want wings, either Bird needs to drink some Red Bull (they say Red Bull gives you WIIIIIIIINNNGS!!!!!), or go to Hooters a few times (I hear they have some good hot wings, too!).

Otherwise, I think Bird has more of a hankerin' for Wendy's. I can still see the old lady demanding to know "Where's the beef ?!?!?!?!?", or I would guess that the commercial stating "Beef: It's What's for Dinner." would seem to resonate with him. I would say either Bird hopes that Hansbrough turns into the monster 4 that he believes he will, or he wants to go out and get one.

McKeyFan

08-02-2011, 12:29 PM

Those of us who have high hopes for Lance (which includes Bird) would want minutes remaining for him. As spelled out above, there may be plenty of minutes left for Paul George if we pick up another hot wing from Hooters, but not for Lance.

ballism

08-02-2011, 12:39 PM

signing of Dunleavy as a second unit passer.

The discussion is basically about Dunleavy's spot. Not whether to add Dunleavy AND another wing. That would be 2 wings. And it wouldn't make any sense. For all Dunleavy's faults, he's too good to be 5th wing nor would he want to.

xIndyFan

08-02-2011, 01:37 PM

interesting reading the discussion. where you stand on the pacer's need of another wing depends on if and where you think lance stephenson ends up playing.

i think lance will be the backup PG at the start of the season with a chance to be the starter by the end of the season. similar to what PG did last season at the 2.

i think GH will get backup 2 minutes mainly with lance. and depending on how well lance and DC play, he could be some PG minutes also. especially with lance. some cross matching on defense where GH guards the 1 and lance the 2.

it seems obvious that PG will get the starters minutes at the 2. and danny will get the starter minutes at the 3.

the real question is not the 2, those minutes will be used up by PG and GH. the question is the backup 3. if PG can play the backup 3, [i.e. if he is strong enough to play the SF] then there will be no need for any more wings. if not, then the pacers have some need of a backup type SF wing. dahntay or brandon both are capable of playing that spot, but neither are as big and strong enough to be desirable there.

tell you what would be really nice. if james posey came into next season able to play the backup 3 like he used to. that would be nice.

but mainly saying, if lance is able to take rotation minutes, then the pacers do not have any need on another wing. if lance cannot take rotation minutes, then the pacers need a wing to get his minutes at the 2 and 3. GH moves to backup 2. personally i would be OK with brandon getting those minutes. this is a contract year for him, so he should be motivated to play hard. and if he plays hard, then brandon is a decent player.

Speed

08-02-2011, 01:55 PM

I guess I'm more okay with D Jones or BRush getting back up minutes than most. If Danny plays 36 and Paul plays 30 that leaves 12 at the Small Forward and 18 at the Shooting Guard. I'd be good with George Hill getting the majority of those 2 guard extra minutes.

Or if you really tightened the rotation for the playoffs, it could look like this.

Point
DC 36 mins
Hill 12 Mins

Shooting Guard
Paul George 24
George Hill 24

Small Forward
Danny 36 mins
Paul George 12

All 4 guys get 36 mins, not ideal in January of a long season, but around playoff time if thats your strongest players, so be it, imo.

I like the idea of Hill/Lance combo, but I'm not putting any stock into Lance until we see something stable from him.

Otherwise, if you dial back the minutes in a long season, I'd be fine with 16 minutes of BRush or 18 minutes of DJones. I think both are capable of that, easily.

I'm not against getting an improvement at any position, I just wouldn't tie up cap space or a chunk of the spendable money on a wing, at this point, with this group.

I know its not the intent of this thread, but if you get another wing, it does by default impact what you can do in the frontcourt. The team needs a defensive minded rebounding tough frontcourt player, another scoring threat in crunch time, and better play from the Point guard spot.

Allocating money away from those more dramatic needs, hurts the ability to improve, imo, at least where things stand at this moment.

CableKC

08-02-2011, 02:41 PM

The way I look at it....we could run a 9 man rotation with more then adequate minutes for anyone of consequence ( aka, Players that we care about ).

The only way that Players like Inferno or BRush could get minutes is if there is no new Starting SG acquired/traded/signed and having PG start at the SG spot. But honestly, I'd prefer to get a new Starting Wing Man and have a 4-man SG/SF rotation of Granger/JRich/PG/GH ( or Granger/PG/Reggie Williams/GH ) instead of a 4-man SG/SF rotation of Granger/PG/GH and some amalgamation of Inferno/Lance/BRush.

That would allow us to run a rather solid 9 man rotation where the Starters get at least 30 mpg ( which can be tweeked with +/- 2 mpg among the Starters and 6th Man ), the 2nd unit Players like GH and Hansbrough would get 24 mpg ( again can be tweeked by a few minutes by reducing the minutes of some of the Starters ) with a Backup Center ( likely Foster ) that would fill out the rest of the minutes and roster.

This is also why I would want to get a Frontcourt Starter that is more of a Starting Quality PF that can play some backup Center minutes, why I would be "ok" ( but would mainly be disappointed for the above reason ) with going after a PF like David West and why I would strongly advocate going after Nene to fill out the rest of the Frontcourt.

pacergod2

08-02-2011, 04:03 PM

I really don't think we want or need another wing. I think George Hill was the addition that we wanted. We have a roster loaded with efficient style players and I love that. BRush should get some minutes between SG and SF. I would like to see Hill start at PG, but I think that Collison is a better fit with George and Granger on the starting unit. Hill would be great next to Stephenson, Rush, or Jones. Stephenson from what I know has been a faily inefficient player that can score and create with the ball in his hands. I think Hill and Rush are better at playing off the ball on the second unit without needing the ball in their hands. We just have too many guys to split minutes as it is and we don't really have a need for another body. A two-for-one type of deal where we take on more money for a better player is what we need, but you typically don't see those trades. The only way that would happen is if we give up George or Collison. I would be ok with Collison, but not George.

We need front court players. We need bodies, which is how we will use our roster spots. I really would focus on bringing in a solid starting caliber big so that we can upgrade next year at PG. No matter what, AJ Price and James Posey seem to be the odd men out. One of either Rush or Jones will probably lose most of their playing time as well. We cannot possibly play 9 people across 3 positions in any kind of rotation. Honestly a five man rotation is ideal across the three positions, but six makes sense with our roster. That would leave us with a four or five man rotation in the front court to leave us with anywhere from 9-11 guys in the rotation. I prefer a nine-man rotation.

We seem to be building a team of efficient players. Hill, Granger, Rush, and Hibbert are all very efficient. Collison is not as much, but he is the one explosive speed guy. I think George could be insanely good if he works on being more efficient. If we pick up a player like Nene, it bolsters our front court with another guy who doesn't need a lot of touches to be effective. A lot of this has to do with good ball movement across all positions. I feel like being the most efficient team is the key to our long-term success. Granger is the veteran that leads by example. I would love to see him average 20 points on 12-13 shots per game and get to the line ~5 times per game.

We have no room for another player between PG-SF. It is and should be all about the bigs for us this off-season.

ballism

08-02-2011, 04:41 PM

The way I look at it....we could run a 9 man rotation with more then adequate minutes for anyone of consequence ( aka, Players that we care about ).

That sounds about right to me. We can reverse the names around in case it's a backup not a starter.

I'd expect Hill to play around 30 total MPG as he used to in San Antonio.

I'd also expect Granger to play a bit as a small ball PF. This year he averaged around 25 MPG at SF and 10 at PF last i checked. I'd expect him to play less overall and especially less at PF.
But I'd be surprised if he doesn't play small ball 4 at all.

Keep in mind that in reality every player misses a couple games due to broken toe nails, etc. People have to step up. So you can add a minute or two to each of those numbers.
What looks like "30 MPG" will end up more like "32 MPG over 78 games" in most cases.

Brad8888

08-02-2011, 07:36 PM

The discussion is basically about Dunleavy's spot. Not whether to add Dunleavy AND another wing. That would be 2 wings. And it wouldn't make any sense. For all Dunleavy's faults, he's too good to be 5th wing nor would he want to.

Dunleavy should be the 4th wing if he is signed here, assuming that Paul progresses and Hill can bring what we have been led to believe. He would dictate the flow of the offense for the second unit, and get plenty of minutes. A combination of Dunleavy, Paul George, McRoberts, and another big to be signed later could elevate the second unit significantly due to ball movement and team defense that could be played. We could even try Lance at the point in a situation like that and not completely stagnate even if he is bringing the ball up the floor.

McKeyFan

08-02-2011, 08:42 PM

Dunleavy should be the 4th wing if he is signed here, assuming that Paul progresses and Hill can bring what we have been led to believe. He would dictate the flow of the offense for the second unit, and get plenty of minutes. A combination of Dunleavy, Paul George, McRoberts, and another big to be signed later could elevate the second unit significantly due to ball movement and team defense that could be played. We could even try Lance at the point in a situation like that and not completely stagnate even if he is bringing the ball up the floor.

I think it would be better to just let Dun move on. Too much of a recipe for chemistry problems.

Given his starter/heart of the rotation role the past few years here, it would be difficult for him to sit so much.

On another team, without that history, it wouldn't sting so much.

CableKC

08-03-2011, 12:14 AM

Dunleavy should be the 4th wing if he is signed here, assuming that Paul progresses and Hill can bring what we have been led to believe. He would dictate the flow of the offense for the second unit, and get plenty of minutes. A combination of Dunleavy, Paul George, McRoberts, and another big to be signed later could elevate the second unit significantly due to ball movement and team defense that could be played. We could even try Lance at the point in a situation like that and not completely stagnate even if he is bringing the ball up the floor.
I really don't see why Dunleavy keeps on coming up in this discussion about our Wing Rotation. Unlike the limited Frontcourt Free Agent options and therefore the liklihood when it comes to re-signing McBob, there are plenty of Wing options in the FA market that I'd much rather have IF we had to sign a rotational Wing Man...then keep Dunleavy. For example, I'd easily pay Reggie Williams the same amount of $$$ that would go to Dunleavy.

I've seen what Dunleavy has done, I'll wish him luck if any Team offers him anything....but I've pretty much decided that it's simply time to move on and look for other options IF Bird truly was looking for an additional Wing to the 2nd Unit ( which I doubt he is ).